Graduate Loan for a masters

[dowie]

I've studied at the same time as working and I wouldn't recommend it if your job isn't fixed hours etcetc... I have project work etc... can get sent overseas and can end up working long hours before deadlines etc... to then add university coursework/reading etc.. on top of that can be stressful...

If your work is flexible or if it just a joe job where you clock off at 5pm and that is it until the next day then it may be more feasible. But otherwise I think the full time option is better... it is very frustrating to hand something in that you could have made a much better attempt at had you had more free time in which to attempt it.

 

[iraiguana]

Consider a PhD if possible. Perhaps go back and talk to your old uni and apply to funding bodies to see if you stand a chance. Usually funding application with a supervisor would help. Engineering/physics/chemistry typically have more project/supervisory type funding than biology/ecology.

 

[Deus Ex]

Do graduate entry medicine or regular medicine for the poor wage and gash levels of stress?

 

[Elixir]

Consider a PhD if possible. Perhaps go back and talk to your old uni and apply to funding bodies to see if you stand a chance. Usually funding application with a supervisor would help. Engineering/physics/chemistry typically have more project/supervisory type funding than biology/ecology.

I'd only recommend a PhD for someone who has a true interest in the subject, not because they want to do the minimum required to get a certain job. Without a genuine interest a PhD would be a lot of hard work and misery.

 

[Brookert]

I've studied at the same time as working and I wouldn't recommend it if your job isn't fixed hours etcetc... I have project work etc... can get sent overseas and can end up working long hours before deadlines etc... to then add university coursework/reading etc.. on top of that can be stressful...

If your work is flexible or if it just a joe job where you clock off at 5pm and that is it until the next day then it may be more feasible. But otherwise I think the full time option is better... it is very frustrating to hand something in that you could have made a much better attempt at had you had more free time in which to attempt it.

Luckily my hours are pretty consistent. I'm based from home travelling to sites, and 9/10 I'm home for 5pm. Also, my job can have a lot of downtime waiting for other people to do things, so there is the opportunity to read up whilst 'at work'.

If I was in your position, I would struggle for motivation to get assignments done.

 

[Amleto]

A LOT. TWO WORDS!

 

[Rich1988]

Only if you're under 30 at the time you start your masters <grrrr>.

Source? lucky I started my degree at the right time then! ill be going into masters at 28 or 29 if i have a year in industry!

 

[Brookert]

A LOT. TWO WORDS!

I swear to god my old primary school teachers were teaching 'a lot'.

 

[[TW]Fox]

How can removing the cost barrier as an entry requirement devalue it?

Come on, you know the answer to this one. If something is rare, it is worth more.

 

[Westyfield2]

Yeah, SLC should be able to fund it soon. Was announced in the last budget. About bloody time, too.

Too late for me .


What's also annoying is that SLC will fund an undergraduate degree + 1 extra year. So if you have to retake a year during undergrad for being thick/lazy/whatever, they'll pay for you to do that year again .

But if you go through your undergraduate degree passing every year first time round, will they pay for you to do a 1 year masters at the end? Hell no!

 

[Deleted member 66701]

....because every Tom, ---- and Harry will enrol on one. A masters is seen as a cut above the rest at the moment, because there are too many people applying for roles with a bachelors degree. If everyone starts getting a masters, the problem then shifts onwards.

I probably won't be eligible for funding as I've used 4 years worth of funding. Oh well.

1: You still need to have the quals to do the masters (i.e. 2.1 classification or higher in a related Hons degree).
2: You still need to actually do the work! You don't just pay £9k and they give you a certificate.

Come on, you know the answer to this one. If something is rare, it is worth more.

Nonsense. There are plenty examples of items that are worth a premium and there are a lot of (Ipads) and items that are worthless and are rare (Ford Scorpio).

And it still doesn't explain how removing a small barrier (one of only a few and only for a small percentage of those able to do a masters i.e. those under 30) will significantly devalue the value of a masters degree (see above).

 

[Elixir]

You don't just pay £9k and they give you a certificate.

Unfortunately that seemed to be the case on my masters, although they were mainly international students so it was far more than £9k. What was previously a very prestigious master's course is now giving degrees to people who most definitely did not deserve them.

That being said, I'd argue that this was caused by the cost increasing rather than the opposite. They put the cost through the roof and started accepting far higher intakes than before.

Whether the degree is devalued in terms of quality of graduates depends entirely on the quantity and caliber of applicants accepted, not how much they have to pay.

 

[muon]

Taught masters degrees have largely been ways of universities fleecing rich international students. Even in the top universities the fees are ridiculously high.

Only masters degrees I respect are research ones and the ones achieved via a 4 year undergraduate course.

As someone mentioned, they also attract people who have been unable to get into their chosen career path after an undergraduate degree. However it doesn't magically open doors and potentially just extends the denial phase.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Unfortunately that seemed to be the case on my masters, although they were mainly international students so it was far more than £9k. What was previously a very prestigious master's course is now giving degrees to people who most definitely did not deserve them.

That being said, I'd argue that this was caused by the cost increasing rather than the opposite. They put the cost through the roof and started accepting far higher intakes than before.

Whether the degree is devalued in terms of quality of graduates depends entirely on the quantity and caliber of applicants accepted, not how much they have to pay.

What institution?

I'm on a Foundation Degree (+ 1yr BSc (Hons) top up if I complete the FD with a Merit) currently and whilst the intake bar is set low, that doesn't mean they lower the overall quality and students on my degree are failing left, right and center - they certainly aren't "dumbing" anything down. They've openly told us they'd rather see 90% of us fail than dumb down the course (which they couldn't really do anyway as Lancaster woudldn't let them).

And remember, you don't have to pass the degree in order for them to get your tuition fee All removing the cost barrier does is ease entry - it does nothing to make the degree easier to pass.

Only masters degrees I respect are research ones and the ones achieved via a 4 year undergraduate course.

I'll be doing an MRes after my FD>BSc(Hons)>PGCE. Yay - 5 years at Uni! I don't qualify for a student loan for the Mres (I'm 36) but if I get a 1st class BSc(Hons) then UGLE (Freemasons) will pay for it under thier scholarship scheme.

 

[Manbatius]

Didn't know that.

Oh amazing. So basically, the government has completely screwed over those who had financial difficulties and graduated circa 2008.

Yep, I miss out on this. Graduated in 2008 will be 30 in 2016 so will miss out on the funding.

I really need to do something to sort my career/life out. Sadly paying for a msc is out of the question for me. Just can't do it with the wage i'm on.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Nonsense.

No, it's not. Consider this basic example.

Example 1: Employer A and Employer B both wish to hire a student with a Masters in, I dunno, Engineering.

Person A is the only person with one.

Example 2: Employer A and Employer B both wish to hire a student with a Masters in, I dunno, Engineering.

Person A, Person B, Person C and Person D all have one.

In which example is the salary for each advertised position likely to be higher?

 

[Deleted member 66701]

No, it's not. Consider this basic example.

Example 1: Employer A and Employer B both wish to hire a student with a Masters in, I dunno, Engineering.

Person A is the only person with one.

Example 2: Employer A and Employer B both wish to hire a student with a Masters in, I dunno, Engineering.

Person A, Person B, Person C and Person D all have one.

In which example is the salary for each advertised position likely to be higher?

Not enough data.

Are there other companies with similar vacanices? Are there more vacancies in the industry than there are qualified candidates?

1 vacancy with 3 qualified candidates does not necessarily mean that the salary for that vacancy will be depresssed. Assuming that the salary would be depressed in such a situation also assumes that the candidates cannot do another job, unrelated to thier degree, at a higher salary.

Nor does a scarcity of qualified candiates necessarily equate to higher salaries (teachers and nurses for example).

Your logic is flawed.

 

[dowie]

Not necessarily, you can see it in areas like finance - finance/financial engineering courses can charge 20k or so in fees and have become a cash cow for various universities... there are increasing numbers of grads chasing the same jobs, degrees that could have landed someone a decent job in 2004/2005 aren't necessarily enough. Some positions now ask for a PhD even though the work doesn't necessarily require it. Obviously there have been a few other factors in that particular job market but the oversupply of people with a mix of some finance/some applied maths/some C++ means that a lot of the grads from those courses end up quite dissapointed.

I don't have an MSc in financial engineering, yet people hired a few years after me in my previous role did have one, it probably is/was useful for the role but not required yet there was such an oversupply of them that we only interviewed people with both the MSc and at least one other European language.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Not enough data.

You don't need any more data, it was simple illustration of a point. If you have loads of something, it is inherently less valuable than if you have not many of something. It's basic economics.

I'll await your exciting rebuttal where you point out I'm wrong because there is more gold in the world than there are CD keys for Battlefield 1942 or something daft.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

You don't need any more data, it was simple illustration of a point. If you have loads of something, it is inherently less valuable than if you have not many of something. It's basic economics.

I'll await your exciting rebuttal where you point out I'm wrong because there is more gold in the world than there are CD keys for Battlefield 1942 or something daft.

No rebuttal.

You're right.